This article aims at reconstructing the history of R1b ancient migrations between 16,000 and 1500 years before present (ybp). Four thousand four hundred eight (4408) haplotypes of haplogroup R1b (with subclades) were considered in terms of base (ancestral) haplotypes of R1b populations and the calculated time to their common ancestors. The regions considered are from South Siberia/Central Asia in the east (where R1b haplogroup arose ~16,000 ybp) via the North Kazakhstan, South Ural to the Russian Plain and further west to Europe (the northern route entering Europe around 4500 ybp); from the Russian Plain south to the Caucasus (6000 ybp), Asia Minor (6000 ybp) and the Middle East (6000 - 5500 ybp) to the Balkans in Europe (the southern route, entering Europe around 4500 ybp); along North Africa and the Mediterranean Sea (5500 - 5000 ybp) via Egypt to the Atlantic, north to Iberia (the North African route with arrival to the Pyrenees 4800 ybp). The Arbins (bearers of R1b haplogroup) along their migration route to the Middle East and South Mesopotamia apparently have established the Sumer culture (and the state), moving westward to Europe (5000 - 4500 ybp) carrying mainly the R-M269 subclade and its downstream L23 subclade. This last subclade was nearly absent along the North African route, and/or did not survive the migration to Iberia or evidenced later. At the arrival to Iberia (4800 ybp) the M269 subclade split off M51 and soon thereafter the L11 downstream subclades. These populations became known as the Bell Beakers and moved north, along with the newly arisen subclades of P312 and L21 (which split off within a few centuries after P312). Those subclades and their downstream clades have effectively, without major interruptions, populated Europe (the smooth haplotype trees demonstrate the near non-stop proliferation of R1b haplotypes in Europe). They are evidenced from the Atlantic eastward to the Balkans, Carpathian Mountains, present day Poland to the western border of the Russian Plain and up to the Baltic Sea. The Isles had a different history of R1b migrations. The bearers of L11, P312 and L21 moved to the Isles by land and sea concurrently with those Arbins who were populating Europe between 4000 and 2500 ybp and formed the respective “local” subclades of P314, M222, L226, which largely populated the Isles. As a result, a significant part of the Isles is populated almost exclusively by the Arbins, whose frequency reaches 85% - 95% among the current population. In general, the frequency of Arbins in Western and Central Europe, reaches—albeit not uniformly—some 60% of the population. This study essentially presents an example of application of DNA genealogy in studying the history of mankind.

This last subclade was nearly absent along the North African route, and/or did not survive the migration to Iberia or evidenced later.At the arrival to Iberia (4800 ybp) the M269 subclade split off M51 and soon thereafter the L11 downstream subclades. These populations became known as the Bell Beakers and moved north, along with the newly arisen subclades of P312 and L21 (which split off within a few centuries after P312). Those subclades and their downstream clades have effectively, without major interruptions, populated Europe (the smooth haplotype trees demonstrate the near non-stop proliferation of R1b haplotypes in Europe).

Wait, doesn't he mean R1b-S21 or R1b-U106? Also, yeah good luck to him trying to prove that R1b-S21 arose in Iberia. Moreso, now that we know that two Bell Beakers very negative for R1b-S21.

To rms2:

Quote from: Klyosov.et.al.2012

Both are very similar and have very close timespans to their common ancestors, as it is shown in the next section. In 4850 ybp L11 promptly split off two “brother” subclades, P312 and U106 (Klyosov, 2011b) which after a long “population bottleneck” on the edge of extinction, eventually survived and expanded around 4000 - 3700 ybp, and actively populated Europe, first as Bell Beakers, between 4000 and 3000 ybp, and then up to the era of Ancient Rome, Gauls and Celts, mentioning only those names which present certain “milestones” in history. In fact, there were dozens if not hun-reds of ancient R1b tribes in Europe.

[...]

The question is—where those L51 and L11 subclades could have arisen? If they are 6000-5000 years “old”, they could have split in Asia Minor, the Middle East or on the Russian Plain, and enter Europe from there. The “intraclade” haplotypes, that is only L51 or only L11 subclade, might reflect population bottlenecks, hence, look “younger” than they in fact should be (in terms of mutations and the respective TMRCA). However, their “interclade” comparison could reveal their lost (due to bottlenecks) timespans to more ancient common ancestors. To analyze those subclades, a combined L51-L11 haplotype tree is shown in Figure 11.

They all do it, the only difference is the time frame, however bottlenecks appear to be the most popular explanation for Ad Hoc approaches. He also needs to claim bottlenecks for I1, E-V13 and all those other fellows, because that's the only possible explanation for E-V13 being found in 7000 ybp Spain, yet getting a TMRCA of less than 3000 ybp according to Klyosov, however, for some reason the TMRCA methodology seems to explain the migration route of R1b very well, but doesn't indicate anything for I1, or E-V13 bearers.

This is a very interesting study and the first time I have seen the entire migration from R to M222 documented in this way. It is different and more readable than his previous article which focussed too much on the Turkic vs PIE debate which distracted from the overall message.

This supports the maritime model I proposed (and adapted) following the publication of the Myres study in 2010.

"The Isles had a different history of their R1b haplotypes and lineages. The bearers of L11, P312 and L21 moved to the Isles by land and sea concurrently with those Arbins who were populating Europe between 4000 and 2500 ybp, and formed the respective “local” subclades, such as P314, M222, L226, which largely populated the Isles. As a result, a significant part of the Isles is populated almost exclusively by the Arbins whose fre-quency reaches 92% - 96% among the population. In general, the frequency of the Arbins in Western and central Europe reaches—albeit not uniformly—some 60% of the population."

"The language of the Arbins may have been originally one language easily flowing through millennia and across Eurasia. However, this is a subject of another study."

Two interesting recent articles on Dienekes blog reinforces this message of a maritine route. One shows the first migration of Agriculture out of Anatolia to Cyprus by sea 10,600 years ago. The second "The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World" clearly shows that the fastest most effective means of communication in the ancient world was the Maritime route.

"Early Neolithic sedentary villagers started cultivating wild cereals in the Near East 11,500 y ago [Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA)]. Recent discoveries indicated that Cyprus was frequented by Late PPNA people, but the earliest evidence until now for both the use of cereals and Neolithic villages on the island dates to 10,400 y ago. Here we present the recent archaeological excavation at Klimonas, which demonstrates that established villagers were living on Cyprus between 11,100 and 10,600 y ago. Villagers had stone artifacts and buildings (including a remarkable 10-m diameter communal building) that were similar to those found on Late PPNA sites on the mainland. Cereals were introduced from the Levant, and meat was obtained by hunting the only ungulate living on the island, a small indigenous Cypriot wild boar. Cats and small domestic dogs were brought from the mainland. This colonization suggests well-developed maritime capabilities by the PPNA period, but also that migration from the mainland may have occurred shortly after the beginning of agriculture."

This sure conflicts with the Tarvi/e paper that Jean L. found. He postulates little migration from the Caucasus?

Mari Järve is a woman -- I assume you are referring to her 2012 dissertation from Tartu University in Estonia. Until very recently she has been part of the "et al" in papers with someone else at the lead, such as (Natalie M.) Myres et al (2011).

This article aims at reconstructing the history of R1b ancient migrations between 16,000 and 1500 years before present (ybp). Four thousand four hundred eight (4408) haplotypes of haplogroup R1b (with subclades) were considered in terms of base (ancestral) haplotypes of R1b populations and the calculated time to their common ancestors. The regions considered are from South Siberia/Central Asia in the east (where R1b haplogroup arose ~16,000 ybp) via the North Kazakhstan, South Ural to the Russian Plain and further west to Europe (the northern route entering Europe around 4500 ybp); from the Russian Plain south to the Caucasus (6000 ybp), Asia Minor (6000 ybp) and the Middle East (6000 - 5500 ybp) to the Balkans in Europe (the southern route, entering Europe around 4500 ybp); along North Africa and the Mediterranean Sea (5500 - 5000 ybp) via Egypt to the Atlantic, north to Iberia (the North African route with arrival to the Pyrenees 4800 ybp). The Arbins (bearers of R1b haplogroup) along their migration route to the Middle East and South Mesopotamia apparently have established the Sumer culture (and the state), moving westward to Europe (5000 - 4500 ybp) carrying mainly the R-M269 subclade and its downstream L23 subclade. This last subclade was nearly absent along the North African route, and/or did not survive the migration to Iberia or evidenced later. At the arrival to Iberia (4800 ybp) the M269 subclade split off M51 and soon thereafter the L11 downstream subclades. These populations became known as the Bell Beakers and moved north, along with the newly arisen subclades of P312 and L21 (which split off within a few centuries after P312). Those subclades and their downstream clades have effectively, without major interruptions, populated Europe (the smooth haplotype trees demonstrate the near non-stop proliferation of R1b haplotypes in Europe). They are evidenced from the Atlantic eastward to the Balkans, Carpathian Mountains, present day Poland to the western border of the Russian Plain and up to the Baltic Sea. The Isles had a different history of R1b migrations. The bearers of L11, P312 and L21 moved to the Isles by land and sea concurrently with those Arbins who were populating Europe between 4000 and 2500 ybp and formed the respective “local” subclades of P314, M222, L226, which largely populated the Isles. As a result, a significant part of the Isles is populated almost exclusively by the Arbins, whose frequency reaches 85% - 95% among the current population. In general, the frequency of Arbins in Western and Central Europe, reaches—albeit not uniformly—some 60% of the population. This study essentially presents an example of application of DNA genealogy in studying the history of mankind.

LOL @ the association of R1b with Sumer. The sky is green I swear to you I do not lie.

... The Arbins (bearers of R1b haplogroup) along their migration route to the Middle East and South Mesopotamia apparently have established the Sumer culture (and the state), moving westward to Europe (5000 - 4500 ybp) carrying mainly the R-M269 subclade and its downstream L23 subclade. This last subclade was nearly absent along the North African route, and/or did not survive the migration to Iberia or evidenced later. At the arrival to Iberia (4800 ybp) the M269 subclade split off M51 and soon thereafter the L11 downstream subclades. ....

LOL @ the association of R1b with Sumer. The sky is green I swear to you I do not lie.

Please elaborate. I don't know enough about Sumerian cultures to give an opinion. Why is this a laugher?

Sumerian culture was responsible for a great expanse of agriculture and cities in the fertile crescent. Along with this, one would expect a booming population and/or explosion. R1b is far too minimal in southern Iraq, and even the adjacent regions to be part of this.

You can't just pull haplogroups out of a hat. When there is scant evidence of aDNA in borderline pre-historic eras, at least be logical with your reasoning.

It looks to me like another desperate attempt to disassociate R1b from Europe and IE and leave it all for Klyosov's galloping R1a elites.

To me the evidence is clear: R1a and R1b are two sides of the same PIE coin. The fact that they've both shown up in similar and adjacent cultures in ancient DNA (Corded Ware & Bell Beaker respectively) is more proof than any cherry picking he can do.

Interestingly he wrote the following:

"The same may be said for Yamnaya, Catacomb and neighboring archaeological cultures of Central and South Russia, which apparently were shared by both R1b and R1a bearers, albeit in different time periods. R1b before 5000 ybp, R1a after 4500 ybp have confused archaeologists who have observed “different roots” of those cultures, spread-ing in different directions and in different times."

...and the following:

"At some point in time, the Arbins (The name he made up for the R1b tribe, lest we confuse them with the R1a Aryans) began migration to the west, across Central Asia, North Kazakhstan, South Urals, to the Russian Plain where they have established a number of archaeological cultures between 12,000 and 4500 ybp (include- ing apparently Seroglazovo, Khvalyn, Samaran, Middle Volga, Drevneyamnay, Catacomb, and also “Proto-Kurgan” and/or “Kurgan” cultures which are largely considered as controversial and not accepted by many historians; it should be emphasized that all those above suggestions regarding the archaeological cultures can be viewed at present only as very tentative ones)."

It looks to me like another desperate attempt to disassociate R1b from Europe and IE and leave it all for Klyosov's galloping R1a elites.

To me the evidence is clear: R1a and R1b are two sides of the same PIE coin. The fact that they've both shown up in similar and adjacent cultures in ancient DNA (Corded Ware & Bell Beaker respectively) is more proof than any cherry picking he can do.

Interestingly he wrote the following:

"The same may be said for Yamnaya, Catacomb and neighboring archaeological cultures of Central and South Russia, which apparently were shared by both R1b and R1a bearers, albeit in different time periods. R1b before 5000 ybp, R1a after 4500 ybp have confused archaeologists who have observed “different roots” of those cultures, spread-ing in different directions and in different times."

...and the following:

"At some point in time, the Arbins (The name he made up for the R1b tribe, lest we confuse them with the R1a Aryans) began migration to the west, across Central Asia, North Kazakhstan, South Urals, to the Russian Plain where they have established a number of archaeological cultures between 12,000 and 4500 ybp (include- ing apparently Seroglazovo, Khvalyn, Samaran, Middle Volga, Drevneyamnay, Catacomb, and also “Proto-Kurgan” and/or “Kurgan” cultures which are largely considered as controversial and not accepted by many historians; it should be emphasized that all those above suggestions regarding the archaeological cultures can be viewed at present only as very tentative ones)."

That's a bit weird that he has R1b in the PIE homeland prior to 3000 BC and then R1a after 2500 BC.

From what I can see, the major PIE homeland theories are the earlier side of that, the times that Klyosov would say R1b was there.

Quote from: Wikipedia

These possibilities boil down to four competing basic models (with variations) that have academic credibility (Mallory (1997:106)), i.e.:

Maybe Klyosov has a different PIE homeland than the Pontic-Steppes. Where does he think it is?

Of course, since R1a and R1b share the same R1 MRCA, and the same territories (at different times) in Klyosov's views, I would think it makes sense that R1a and R1b may not have been so isolated from each other.

I don't get the R1b from Central Asia premise. There is close to no R1b there. Bashkir M269 is recent. M269 in the rest of Central Asia is most likely related to Sassanid Persians. And M73 could a recent expansion from somewhere else imo.

It is clear R1a and R1b interacted with each other (Tripoyle and Yamn). I am just confused on why no Tripoyle R1b-M269 (or I2 for that matter) shows up in Andronovo. Is it due to a lack of samples/bottlenecks? Would more samples eventually show R1b-M269 in addition to M73, I2, G2a, , Z93+, Z280+ and Z283+ ?

Some people have argued for Corded Ware being the PIE homeland. Maybe that is what he thinks?

Maybe Klyosov has a different PIE homeland than the Pontic-Steppes. Where does he think it is?

Unfortunately he quotes his other papers more than he does others, so I can't see how he came up with much of anything.

What doesn't make sense to me is that he is saying that R1b left the Yamnaya area about 3,000 BC and made some long convoluted stops in the Middle East, then Northern Africa and finally arriving in Iberia in 2,800 BC.

Since he uses math to back up his logic, how about a straight line being the shortest distance between two points? If R1b1a2 did indeed leave the Yamnaya Cultural region around 3,000 BC, then wouldn't the safe money be that it would have traveled up the Danube to produce the two German Bell Beaker samples by 2,600 BC?

Another half of the Assyrian hap-lotypes in the Project, mostly from Iran, have a slightly mutated “classical” European R1b1a2 base haplotype (with DYS464 = 15 15 17 17), and a common ancestor of 850 ± 360 ybp calcu-lated from the first 12 markers, and 1100 ± 280 ybp from the first 37 markers. This R1b evidence is clearly a relatively recent event in Assyrian population, brought from Europe.

This cannot be correct. The lines he is referring to are R-L584. They most certainly did not arrive 1100 ± 280 ybp. This is the same line that appears to be, albeit slightly mutated, the modal haplotype among the Alawites. And the one shared with the Cohanim Jewish men.

GD to Al-Jeloo, based on 67 markers. All of the men, save for one, are members of the "Nestorian" church. The other one, Hermes, may be from the "Nestorian" church. We still have not tested the Syriac Orthodox and Chaldean Catholics to any significant extent, unfortunately.

Another half of the Assyrian hap-lotypes in the Project, mostly from Iran, have a slightly mutated “classical” European R1b1a2 base haplotype (with DYS464 = 15 15 17 17), and a common ancestor of 850 ± 360 ybp calcu-lated from the first 12 markers, and 1100 ± 280 ybp from the first 37 markers. This R1b evidence is clearly a relatively recent event in Assyrian population, brought from Europe.

This cannot be correct. The lines he is referring to are R-L584. They most certainly did not arrive 1100 ± 280 ybp. This is the same line that appears to be, albeit slightly mutated, the modal haplotype among the Alawites. And the one shared with the Cohanim Jewish men.

GD to Al-Jeloo, based on 67 markers. All of the men, save for one, are members of the "Nestorian" church. The other one, Hermes, may be from the "Nestorian" church. We still have not tested the Syriac Orthodox and Chaldean Catholics to any significant extent, unfortunately.

I don't get the R1b from Central Asia premise. There is close to no R1b there. Bashkir M269 is recent. M269 in the rest of Central Asia is most likely related to Sassanid Persians. And M73 could a recent expansion from somewhere else imo.

It is clear R1a and R1b interacted with each other (Tripoyle and Yamn). I am just confused on why no Tripoyle R1b-M269 (or I2 for that matter) shows up in Andronovo. Is it due to a lack of samples/bottlenecks? Would more samples eventually show R1b-M269 in addition to M73, I2, G2a, , Z93+, Z280+ and Z283+ ?

I am not sure that both R1a and R1b interacted within or in the contact areas between Tripolye and the Yamna horizon, but I don't know. Why do you say that is clear?

If the Yamna horizon is an horizon cultures spread across a broad area, why do you think the what pops out on the east side of that horizon and great plain has to have the same mix as what pops out on the west side far away? There are probably a number bottlenecks, cultural integrations and splits within the bands of Yamna peoples.

I don't get the R1b from Central Asia premise. There is close to no R1b there. Bashkir M269 is recent. M269 in the rest of Central Asia is most likely related to Sassanid Persians. And M73 could a recent expansion from somewhere else imo.

It is clear R1a and R1b interacted with each other (Tripoyle and Yamn). I am just confused on why no Tripoyle R1b-M269 (or I2 for that matter) shows up in Andronovo. Is it due to a lack of samples/bottlenecks? Would more samples eventually show R1b-M269 in addition to M73, I2, G2a, , Z93+, Z280+ and Z283+ ?

I am not sure that both R1a and R1b interacted within or in the contact areas between Tripolye and the Yamna horizon, but I don't know. Why do you say that is clear?

If the Yamna horizon is an horizon cultures spread across a broad area, why do you think the what pops out on the east side of that horizon and great plain has to have the same mix as what pops out on the west side far away? There are probably a number bottlenecks, cultural integrations and splits with in the bands of Yamna peoples.

That would make sense to some degree. We saw a lot of rare Q subclades in Iran and India which are not associated with Turkic admixture. Does that open up the possibility of Q being West Eurasian? An origin of R2 (both l295+ and l295_ found here) also makes sense as does R1a. M73 seems to have been brought to the area by proto Turks. The M73 you find in Pakistan is found among the Hazaras who are the descendants of Turko-Mongols. You find some among the Tajiks as well who have significant Turkic admixture.

I say it is clear because many here associate R1b with lactose persistence which spread to the steepe and is found at appreciable frequencies in IE speaking parts of Asia. And then Jean M mentioned that rare mtdna T clade being found in both Andronovo and Tripoyle. I also find it hard to believe the IE speakers expanding east were fully R1a-Z93+. They had a minority of other clades which died out. Central Asia has been subject to numerous Turkic invasions which have changed the picture and that has also led to migrations westward.

This last subclade was nearly absent along the North African route, and/or did not survive the migration to Iberia or evidenced later.At the arrival to Iberia (4800 ybp) the M269 subclade split off M51 and soon thereafter the L11 downstream subclades. These populations became known as the Bell Beakers and moved north, along with the newly arisen subclades of P312 and L21 (which split off within a few centuries after P312). Those subclades and their downstream clades have effectively, without major interruptions, populated Europe (the smooth haplotype trees demonstrate the near non-stop proliferation of R1b haplotypes in Europe).

Wait, doesn't he mean R1b-S21 or R1b-U106? Also, yeah good luck to him trying to prove that R1b-S21 arose in Iberia. Moreso, now that we know that two Bell Beakers very negative for R1b-S21.

To rms2:

Quote from: Klyosov.et.al.2012

Both are very similar and have very close timespans to their common ancestors, as it is shown in the next section. In 4850 ybp L11 promptly split off two “brother” subclades, P312 and U106 (Klyosov, 2011b) which after a long “population bottleneck” on the edge of extinction, eventually survived and expanded around 4000 - 3700 ybp, and actively populated Europe, first as Bell Beakers, between 4000 and 3000 ybp, and then up to the era of Ancient Rome, Gauls and Celts, mentioning only those names which present certain “milestones” in history. In fact, there were dozens if not hun-reds of ancient R1b tribes in Europe.

[...]

The question is—where those L51 and L11 subclades could have arisen? If they are 6000-5000 years “old”, they could have split in Asia Minor, the Middle East or on the Russian Plain, and enter Europe from there. The “intraclade” haplotypes, that is only L51 or only L11 subclade, might reflect population bottlenecks, hence, look “younger” than they in fact should be (in terms of mutations and the respective TMRCA). However, their “interclade” comparison could reveal their lost (due to bottlenecks) timespans to more ancient common ancestors. To analyze those subclades, a combined L51-L11 haplotype tree is shown in Figure 11.

They all do it, the only difference is the time frame, however bottlenecks appear to be the most popular explanation for Ad Hoc approaches. He also needs to claim bottlenecks for I1, E-V13 and all those other fellows, because that's the only possible explanation for E-V13 being found in 7000 ybp Spain, yet getting a TMRCA of less than 3000 ybp according to Klyosov, however, for some reason the TMRCA methodology seems to explain the migration route of R1b very well, but doesn't indicate anything for I1, or E-V13 bearers.

I can't find the source for Klyosov stating that the oldest Bell Beaker artefacts are found in the Pyrenees. The only confirmed source I have about the oldest Bell Beaker artefacts are from Cunliffe stating Eastern Iberia for the BB archers. I don't think we have any BB remains tested positive for R1b folks in Iberia, so where is he getting his data?

.... I say it is clear because many here associate R1b with lactose persistence which spread to the steepe and is found at appreciable frequencies in IE speaking parts of Asia. And then Jean M mentioned that rare mtdna T clade being found in both Andronovo and Tripoyle. I also find it hard to believe the IE speakers expanding east were fully R1a-Z93+. They had a minority of other clades which died out. Central Asia has been subject to numerous Turkic invasions which have changed the picture and that has also led to migrations westward.

Okay, I see what you are saying. I wouldn't necessarily say it is clear that R1a and R1b interacted in the Tripolye Yamna contact/integration. This is a good chance they did. I wish we had some aDNA from those sites.

I don't get the R1b from Central Asia premise. There is close to no R1b there. Bashkir M269 is recent. M269 in the rest of Central Asia is most likely related to Sassanid Persians. And M73 could a recent expansion from somewhere else imo.

It is clear R1a and R1b interacted with each other (Tripoyle and Yamn). I am just confused on why no Tripoyle R1b-M269 (or I2 for that matter) shows up in Andronovo. Is it due to a lack of samples/bottlenecks? Would more samples eventually show R1b-M269 in addition to M73, I2, G2a, , Z93+, Z280+ and Z283+ ?

I am not sure that both R1a and R1b interacted within or in the contact areas between Tripolye and the Yamna horizon, but I don't know. Why do you say that is clear?

If the Yamna horizon is an horizon cultures spread across a broad area, why do you think the what pops out on the east side of that horizon and great plain has to have the same mix as what pops out on the west side far away? There are probably a number bottlenecks, cultural integrations and splits within the bands of Yamna peoples.

Mike

Would you agree that R1b shows the hallmarks (lack of deep bushy branches) of a haplotype that was in a low population hunter-gather location until late in the Neolithic. I am now thinking that V88 was simply a guy who somehow wandered into the farming zone or perhaps sailed. I think the rarity of line founding on a scale that wont daughter out etc until late in the Neolithic kind of demonstrates that they were at a sufficient remove from farming to make gravitation towards it, incorporation within it or emulation of it a rare event. I now am very curious about the late hunter cultures all round the Black and Caspian Seas (all sides).

Is am wondering if L23* first intruded into the fringes of the farming zone around the Caucuses and Anatolia and perhaps the Black Sea shores of Romania from some non-farming area on the Black Sea who were in the vanguard of the R1 peoples movements into the old farming world. Perhaps the group who entered Anatolia early by doing so broke off PIE early hence Anatolian. I imagine other L23* headed west into Romania. This sort of diffusion west and south would fit well a location near the northern shores of Black Sea c. 4000BC or so. I wonder if this could be linked to the disappearance of the Bug -Dniester and other hunters in the face of Cucuteni-Trypole famers invading their areas. This must have had some effect on the hunter-fishers. Here is the chronology of the Cucuteni-Typole movements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodization_of_the_Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture

I just wonder if some L23* (and Anatolian language?) was displaced with the hunters from the western end of some sort of proto-proto-IE zone of hunters when (non-R1b) Cucuteni-Trypole pushed in. Not exactly a clear smoking gun but around the right place about the right time. Displacement could have involved boats too so no trail needs to exist over land. So I guess what I am speculating is that while R1a may have arisen further east along the steppes perhaps R1b was located among the Bug-Dneiper or related groups immediately to the west on the north shore of the Black Sea. Displacement of such a group would have happened progressively as Cucuteni-Trypole intruded.

.... I say it is clear because many here associate R1b with lactose persistence which spread to the steepe and is found at appreciable frequencies in IE speaking parts of Asia. And then Jean M mentioned that rare mtdna T clade being found in both Andronovo and Tripoyle. I also find it hard to believe the IE speakers expanding east were fully R1a-Z93+. They had a minority of other clades which died out. Central Asia has been subject to numerous Turkic invasions which have changed the picture and that has also led to migrations westward.

Okay, I see what you are saying. I wouldn't necessarily say it is clear that R1a and R1b interacted in the Tripolye Yamna contact/integration. This is a good chance they did. I wish we had some aDNA from those sites.

I am now thinking the lack of deep branching in R1b would not be compatible with a farming group like C-T who themselves are descended from older SE European farming groups. R1b looks like it was only incorporated late into a farming society with its demographic opportunities. I think the problem is that people keep talking about Typole Yamna contact. What about the pre-Yamna hunters who lived a little further west i.e. the Bug-Dneister and similar cultures. Could R1b not have been located there? Yamna is thought to be descended from hunters (I think its Sredny Stog) a little to the east. Because of the low demographic growth of most hunter groups this presents a good opportunity for mixed R1 populations to end up divided into single lineage groups.

In terms of Anantole's paper I would say 'dont throw out the baby with the bath water'. Its a very interesting paper about the deepest origins of R1b and its early fanning out. Its a pity he tends to undermine his cred a little when he dabbles outside the DNA and mathematical element but a lot of what he says is very interesting. I would say his general model of the multi-directional fanning out of R1b from south Russia could be on the money. I would interpret it culturally somewhat differently though. I would suspect that his southwards movement of L23 could be associated with the Anatolian languages and the Assyrian element could well be due to the Hittite empire who I suspect had an L23 aristocracy. I would certainly not associate L23 with the founding of Sumer but it clearly infiltrated the area. Personally I would think L23 Biforked south and west judging by the split between Hittite and the other Indo-Europeans. Some L23 must have stayed behind in the 'core' where full PIE developed and headed west more directly into Europe. All in all if you ignore some of his dabblings in interpretation I still find his basic model very interesting albeit some of the details of its spread into central and western Europe need some work IMO.

One comment- I think Jean L said good luck to anyone deriving U106 from Iberia. I think the reality is U106 did not exist at the time of the first century or so of the spread of L11. It was an L11* lineage that did the travelling IMO and the U106 SNP happened in a locality (the Baltic) after the initial migration phase and apparently remained fairly bottled up for a very long time after. Bottom line is U106 and P312 both share a very recent L11 ancestor and the later cultural linguistic distinctions we put on them are things that happened long after they did their initial migration phase (in the case of U106 still in the L11* form). Yes U106 eventually did become associated with the formation of Germanic but that was a matter of geography and probably happened about 600BC, 2000 years after the L11* ancestors of U106 had migrated to Poland. Finally I would still strongly think that the Rhone and adjacent were the landfall of L51/L11 group in Europe via some route either through central Europe of around Italy.

...also as for the Sumer link could that not be related to the strong connections with the north in the metal trade (Maekop etc). I think Anatole has provided an epic in depth analysis of the DNA although he is dabbling outside his area of expertise in interpretation and that is a pity as I think he should be congradulated in 'having a go' at providing an overall genetic history of R1b. I think as soon as one excepts the variance dating for R1b in its various stages then it is quite clear R1b was an intruder into the farming zone in a number of phases from 4000BC. This almost forces us to look to the steppes and adjacent. I think perhaps he tries too hard to distinguise R1b and R1a and contrast them when they have so much in common although there clearly was some modest geographical/chronological differences that created the contrasting patterning. Personally I think they were both in the zone where PIE evolved.

I think as soon as one excepts the variance dating for R1b in its various stages then it is quite clear R1b was an intruder into the farming zone in a number of phases from 4000BC.

The other thing that would make a little more sense of the TMRCA data we have (if people accepted it -- which many do not, and will not if it conflicts with their strongly held beliefs) would be ignoring paragroups such as L23*, M51*, L11*, maybe even P312*, except in the case of aDNA that exhibited those early and still un-branched SNPs. Whether someone survives today whose Y-DNA hasn't branched since the LGM (or something in that time range), I don't know; but in the absence of very hard evidence, I tend to doubt it. And given that doubt, I give little weight to some closely reasoned constructs about refugia (several millennia after the LGM), PIE (before there was PIE), and the like. To me, the variance-based dating is currently more credible.

Whereas, to partisans of some regional or cultural sorts (Italian, Basque, Assyrian and Iranian spring to mind -- but there are several others, who just aren't making so much noise in this specific discussion), the best way to make the data fit their theories is to concentrate on time frames earlier than any good evidence we might have that contradicts them. Arguing about that -- or with them -- just doesn't seem to me to be a very productive use of the time of others who are not obsessed with those same theories (although we may well be obsessed in some other ways).

But with regard specifically to Alan's comment, the interclade MRCA dating is better than intraclade, and these paragroups don't today constitute a sufficiently precise clade with which one might draw meaningful interclade comparisons. Presumably most of them are ephemera, and will go away after their downstream SNPs are discovered and tested. Ethnic partisans won't go away, that would be too much to hope for. But their efforts might be better directed at such projects as testing Romanian Y-DNA. Some ethnic groups have been doing that sort of thing quite well -- including the ones I mentioned, and quite a few others -- with the caveat that many of the scholarly efforts to date have tested at very low resolution.